New Game: Magnapoco

Nick Bentley

unread,

Feb 26, 2012, 7:31:32 PM2/26/12

to

This one's for Corey, who's been on me to post some of my unpublished
designs. I designed this one with him in mind.

http://nickbentley.posterous.com/new-game-magnapoco

Nick Bentley

unread,

Feb 26, 2012, 7:33:53 PM2/26/12

to

luigi

unread,

Feb 27, 2012, 4:01:54 AM2/27/12

to

This looks like a beautiful and original game. I think I understand
its strategical dilemma: you'd want to create as few groups as
possible so that the smallest of them is as big as possible, but you
shouldn't create too few of them, or you'll be more likely forced to
join them all in a single group later in the game and lose. If the
game works as expected, finding the right balance between these two
extremes could be an exciting challenge.

However, I don't like the fact that the game starts from a fixed
position, and I think this is actually unnecessary. Instead, I suggest
starting from an empty board and stating the winning condition as
follows:

"When the board is full, the player whose smallest group is biggest
wins, unless it's his only group on the board, in which case he loses.
In case of a tie, etc."

With the current rules, the event of having only one group at the end
of your turn will only occur if you can't create any additional groups
after joining them all. This already requires a practically full
board, so it doesn't seem apropriate to make the "one group loses"
rule a sudden death condition which introduces the need for a starting
set-up. With my suggested rule, I'd say players will have more than
enough incentive to create more than one group from the very
beginning. Otherwise, his second group will have reduced growth
potential when it's finally created.

But I haven't actually played the game yet, so I may be missing some
crucial point here.

Nick Bentley

unread,

Feb 27, 2012, 10:55:38 AM2/27/12

to

> This looks like a beautiful and original game.

Thank you kindly :)

> I think I understand its strategical dilemma: you'd want to create as
> few groups as possible so that the smallest of them is as big as possible, but you
> shouldn't create too few of them, or you'll be more likely forced to
> join them all in a single group later in the game and lose. If the
> game works as expected, finding the right balance between these two
> extremes could be an exciting challenge.

That's how I understand it as well. Although on a square board, it's
more about cutting off your opponent. On a hex board, it takes more
effort to keep your groups disconnected and it's a bit colder there.
I'm not sure which is best. I'd like to hear other opinions. You can
also make the square board version colder by increasing the minimum
group size from 2 to 3 (or more, on boards larger than 7x7)

> However, I don't like the fact that the game starts from a fixed
> position, and I think this is actually unnecessary. Instead, I suggest
> starting from an empty board and stating the winning condition as
> follows:
>
> "When the board is full, the player whose smallest group is biggest
> wins, unless it's his only group on the board, in which case he loses.
> In case of a tie, etc."
>
> With the current rules, the event of having only one group at the end
> of your turn will only occur if you can't create any additional groups
> after joining them all. This already requires a practically full
> board, so it doesn't seem apropriate to make the "one group loses"
> rule a sudden death condition which introduces the need for a starting
> set-up. With my suggested rule, I'd say players will have more than
> enough incentive to create more than one group from the very
> beginning. Otherwise, his second group will have reduced growth
> potential when it's finally created.

This is an interesting idea and it may turn out to be the best
version. I'm not sure. I considered it but decided not to do it for
two (very tentative and speculative) reasons.

1. the game could end with both players having one group, and because
of this, there might be some incentive for the player who will have
the largest one to play toward that end, which somehow doesn't feel
right.

2. I'm worried that a rather staid "bleeding in from the edges"
strategy will predominate. It's nothing more than a hunch at this
point.

I'll try to be by iggc later this afternoon. If you (or anyone else
reading this) is around, I'd like to test the different versions.

luigi

unread,

Feb 27, 2012, 12:58:02 PM2/27/12

to

On 27 feb, 16:55, Nick Bentley <nickobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is an interesting idea and it may turn out to be the best
> version. I'm not sure. I considered it but decided not to do it for
> two (very tentative and speculative) reasons.
>
> 1. the game could end with both players having one group, and because
> of this, there might be some incentive for the player who will have
> the largest one to play toward that end, which somehow doesn't feel
> right.

I don't understand this. If you lose by having only one group when the
board is full, I can't see the incentive to play towards that end.

Nick Bentley

unread,

Feb 27, 2012, 1:03:32 PM2/27/12

to

> I don't understand this. If you lose by having only one group when the
> board is full, I can't see the incentive to play towards that end.

But what if both players only have one group at game's end? In that
case, according to the rules you've suggested (as I understand them),
doesn't it mean that the player with the larger single group wins?

Nick Bentley

unread,

Feb 27, 2012, 1:05:15 PM2/27/12

to

> But what if both players only have one group at game's end? In that
> case, according to the rules you've suggested (as I understand them),
> doesn't it mean that the player with the larger single group wins?

Ah, sorry, I got my words mixed up: it means the player with the
smaller group wins, yes? So one player can win by having a single
group, if both players have a single group. Isn't that some incentive?

luigi

unread,

Feb 27, 2012, 1:56:50 PM2/27/12

to

On 27 feb, 19:05, Nick Bentley <nickobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > But what if both players only have one group at game's end? In that
> > case, according to the rules you've suggested (as I understand them),
> > doesn't it mean that the player with the larger single group wins?

Oh, I see your point. I didn't think of that, sorry. Not sure if it
would be a problem, though.

> Ah, sorry, I got my words mixed up: it means the player with the
> smaller group wins, yes?

Actually, it means the player with the bigger group wins.

Nick Bentley

unread,

Feb 27, 2012, 2:34:44 PM2/27/12

to

> Actually, it means the player with the bigger group wins.

Ok, it looks like I got my thoughts mixed up instead of my words. In
any case, my concern is the same either way. When both players end up
with only one group, one will win, and that fact might incentivize one
player to try to win that way.

Although it doesn't feel right to me now, it might not be a bad thing,
however. I've no idea. I need to play much more.

luigi

unread,

Feb 28, 2012, 2:15:26 AM2/28/12

to

On 27 feb, 20:34, Nick Bentley <nickobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Actually, it means the player with the bigger group wins.
>
> Ok, it looks like I got my thoughts mixed up instead of my words. In
> any case, my concern is the same either way. When both players end up

> with only one group, one will win [...]
And that one will always be the first player. Hmm, this sounds like
trouble indeed. Maybe your intuition was right.

luigi

unread,

Feb 29, 2012, 1:17:47 PM2/29/12

to

On 27 feb, 19:56, luigi <luis.9.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ah, sorry, I got my words mixed up: it means the player with the
> > smaller group wins, yes?
>
> Actually, it means the player with the bigger group wins.

Actually not.

:-/

Nick Bentley

unread,

Feb 29, 2012, 1:50:33 PM2/29/12

to

I guess this means your proposed win condition is also a bit confusing?

luigi

unread,

Mar 1, 2012, 12:19:08 AM3/1/12

to

Maybe, but in my case it only means that I should read/write more
carefully.

Jackspritz

unread,

Mar 2, 2012, 11:32:45 PM3/2/12

to

Hi Nick, I just wanted to say I appreciated you dedicating a game to
me. I was going to hold off commenting until I had a chance to play
but instead I went without internet all week. I can only think of the
typical pallid crap "Oh great Job Nick". I'll just say for now I think
its a really innovative concept, a very subtle design that seems like
it has the potential to lead to some very remarkable gameplay but to
be honest I don't feel like I can say much else, I'd have to play it
to get a real sense of it. Also I'm still waiting for that Chess
variant!! ;)

Nick Bentley

unread,

Mar 3, 2012, 12:06:55 AM3/3/12

to

Heh :)

You know, I actually had two games for you, because "design a game Corey would like" was a personal challenge to myself for a little while. But I forgot the structure of the other game before I wrote down the rules. Lost for now.